by Gast6n Kuperschmit
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled March 9 by the narrowest of margins, 5-4, to limit the protections afforded by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying that state legislatures are not required to draw electoral districts to the benefit of non-white candidates in districts where they encompass less than half of the population. Writing for the majority in Bartlett v. Strickland, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated race must be considered only in redistricting where “a geographically compact group of minority voters” comprise 50 percent or more of a single-member district.
The case before the Court concerned District 13 in North Carolina where the African-North American population prior to the redistricting after the 2000 Census was 39 percent. Afterwards, it was reduced to 35 percent. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued that state officials engaged in vote dilution.
The dissent through Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with plaintiffs that the ruling was “difficult to fathom and severely undermines the [Voting Rights Act’s] estimable aim.”
Following the ruling, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund released a statement expressing disappointment with the Court’s conclusion: “Bartlett v. Strickland closed the courthouse doors to many Latinos and other minority communities who face discrimination with regard to voting.”
The timing of this decision is critical as the federal government prepares to conduct the 2010 Census, which is the precursor to congressional redistricting. MALDEF stressed that with the meteoric increase in Hispanic population since 2000Mhe protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act are of utmost concern to the community.
The Court is scheduled to hear a case involving the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Act this term. It requires that states with a history of racial discrimination receive federal consent before amending voting laws.
Several groups are expected to look at the implications that Bartlett will have on voting districts with significant Hispanic populations that do not meet the requirement of 50 percent.
Alan Clayton, Director of Equal Employment Opportunity at Los Angeles Chicano Employees Association, who filed a complaint with the Department of Justice in 2003 regarding the redistricting of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, states that this decision will not impact that case.
However, he says, there are districts within California that may be affected and he is reviewing any potential impact in that state.
For more information contact Alan Clayton at (626) 979-4902. Hispanic Link.
